New Audio Review Term: Black Background

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I'm bothered by a new term entering its way into our general audio lexicon and audio reviews. That term is black background. To me, a black background is a coloration, not a goal to be aspired to. This black background obscures in part the differences between recordings. When I hear live music, it is open and clear and has no color associated with it. That is unless I'm attending a concert at a terrible live venue such as Town Hall in NY.

When I read a review where the reviewer describes and touts the gear's black background, I immediately think of the distortions characterizing the early generations of SE tube amplifiers. Or some of the early Classe gear such as the DR6. I'd also be listening for some upper octave rolloffs or suckouts in the upper mids. To me, this black background is desired by those who have some sort of upper midrange brightness, room aberrations, harshness, etc.

What's everyone's thoughts?
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Well I think it's a poor choice of words (or describe black background so the average person knows what the reviewer is talking about-eg don't assume because you understand the term that the reader does!) Black I'd argue, for most people, conjurs up in the minds eye, something that is closed in, not open sounding. If it's noise, then call it noise--such as what one hears when better caps such as some of the new Teflons are used in circuit or one changes an AC receptacle.

Now here's a followup question to Albert's response. I also don't understand the incessant need to recreate the audio vocabulary. It's confusing enough. Yes, I do know. Reviewers feel the need to put their mark on everything and the last thing in their system is the greatest :) Do you think our audio jargon is off putting to potential high-end audio newbies? Soundstaging, imaging, low level resolution, openness, transparency, etc....

And welcome aboard Albert, nice to see you here!
 
Last edited:

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I do not envy reviewers and their editors, yourself included Myles. Just 10 years ago it was easy to pigeonhole just about anything. Audio wise products tended to lean one way or another and many attributes were often mutually exclusive. That just isn't the case anymore because of the ever increasing resolution available in the playback chain as well as the trend for increasing sensitivity/dynamic ability in the average loudspeaker.

There is in my opinion a need for an expanded lexicon. Yin and Yang just doesn't cut it anymore. The boys at Sonic Flare came up with an interesting concept. That rainbow colored circle of theirs. Yet the state of the art, as I see it, can't be found on the ring but is actually somewhere in that obviously empty donut hole. That hole is the missing lexicon of which "black backgrounds" and its other visually analogous kin are attempting to fill and far as I can tell fails to do.

The jargon is off putting to me now because I find it just can't adequately describe the minutest of subtleties and nuances that make the difference between a product being good and great. "Je nais se quoi", X-factor, that intangible that excites the writer, that quality that made the experience special. THAT is what I want to read about. A human perspective and not the current lexicon which to me has become an incomplete checklist of attributes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I don't read my Absolute Sound issues religiously so can't say I have run into the term recently. But I thought this term has been around for a long time to basically describe gear that had excellent noise characteristics. Mark Levinson amps I thought fell in this category and described as such. If I am mistaken, is there an example of how it is used now?
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I don't read my Absolute Sound issues religiously so can't say I have run into the term recently. But I thought this term has been around for a long time to basically describe gear that had excellent noise characteristics. Mark Levinson amps I thought fell in this category and described as such. If I am mistaken, is there an example of how it is used now?

Amir,

I think I've tended to see the use of "black" background with a couple of the internet magazines.

I guess if the equipments noise floor is lower, I hear more resolution, less grain and a greater ablity to see into and between instruments on the recording. Black background; not to my ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterA

kach22i

WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
1,591
210
1,635
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.kachadoorian.com
I've been reading the term "black background" in turntable and associated equipment reviews for a very long time. I think when used in that context it's as simple as snap, crackle and pop.

http://blog.epromos.com/archives/2007/06/snap_crackle_pr.html


Using the term "black background" to review anything else than a TT is poor form. It would be like calling someone a software architect. There are only two kinds of architects, real architects and naval architects, everyone else is title stealing.
 

Albertporter

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2010
185
19
1,575
Dallas, TX
www.albertporterphoto.com
Perhaps black background was easy for me to accept because as a photographer I think in terms of bright, dark, black and white. You may know, white is the presence of all color and black is the absence of all color.

In digital photography excess noise can prevent shadows from rendering true black. A black background is a good thing in photography and music if it's supposed to be there.

I read and hear many words used to describe music. Things that I don't always "get" like scale, PRAT, emotion, fluid, texture, magic and others. Each of these can mean different things to different people. I'm not arguing for use of the term, everyone has their own audio vocabulary and some I can understand and some I'm not sure.

This is all an attempt to precisely communicate a listening experience. An impossible task unless you've listened long term with a person and can associate the description with an experience. Even then it may not always transfer, we just do the best we can and learn as we go.
 

kach22i

WBF Founding Member
Apr 21, 2010
1,591
210
1,635
Ann Arbor, Michigan
www.kachadoorian.com
Hey, hey, hey! Where did that come from? I didn't realize our industries were at war :D.

The AIA (American Institute of Architects) defends and promotes the title of "architect" to be reserved for licensed professionals in the traditional sense. However their declaration of war was not heard by many because they have a tiny voice and tiny little fists to back it up with. I'm no longer an AIA member, and my comment was perhaps meant to get a raise, but in good humor and with some self defecation tossed in.

This is what they do in Texas, but hey it's another country.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/legal-issues/trust-me-im-an-unlicensed-architect.aspx
The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners...................Early this year, after Backyard Architect came to their attention,................So in July, an administrative law judge advised the board to impose a penalty against Gideo of $200,000

Perhaps the term black background should be defended by the turntable reviewers.:)
 

es347

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,577
35
970
Midwest fly over state..
Call me crazy but the descriptor "black background" = "dead silent background" = "nada, zilch, zippo noise" has never confused me. Just add it to the rather limited number of sonic descriptors that are available to our journalist buddies, sitting at their laptops with laminated glossaries of audio nouns, adjectives and adverbs with which to dazzle the reader. It would be fun to assemble of list of that over-used rhetoric. I may work on that in fact.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
I agree with ES347 on this one. To me, black background just means the absence of noise. There are other terms I find far more objectionable-like PRAT. I believe PRAT came from the Linnies and I really don't like that term. To me, pace and timing mean the same thing. What rhythm means I have no idea. Usually when somone refers to rhythm, it means playing in time. I don't know how you can separate pace from timing. The time signature of music is what sets the pace.

Mark
 

es347

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,577
35
970
Midwest fly over state..
PRAT: great example of audio double talk.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
Ah PRAT. Don't get me started. It is so ironic that when the term was appropriated by audiophiles from the world of physiology, the most musically significant part of the acronym disappeared! In Physiology it is Pace, Rhythm, ATTACK and Timing. Oh Boy!!!!

I think it's the Nait-ees more than the Linnies though.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
PRAT: great example of audio double talk.

I think deep down, these people are trying to point out that the "reductionist school" of reviewing isn't always correct; instead they want to appraise the DUT from a "global perspective." Or as is commonly said, is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?

For instance, we know in science that the reductionist point of view doesn't always work because as a system becomes more complex, there are always unpredictable interactions and synergies occurring. It even impacts learning eg. should we teach say athletes from a "top" down or "bottom" up approach? In other works is it better to teach the whole movement pattern (top down) or the individual components and let the athlete assemble it into one movement (bottom up). Turns out that when studies were conducted, the bottom up approach led to quicker skill acquisition but less skill retention; otoh, the top down (eg. more congitive based approach) led to slower skill acquisition but much better skill retention. Think a lot of this applies to audio and reviewing too. (or can we reduce music to 0 and 1s?).

Now I personally feel that what many of these people call PRAT are colorations such as upper mid-brightness or say turntable platter resonances (such as having to damp that metal Linn platter with a felt pad -or the images run around the stage like musical chairs) that results in the perception of the music being "faster." Or as we've all heard, overdamping a platter, a vacuum tube, equipment chassis can suck all the life out of the music. But PRAT is not certainly not an end all as some would have you believe.

Or let me give an example I talked about earlier, the early digital CBS LP of Bernstein conducting Shostakovitch's 5th. When I listened to LP, I thought it was playing at the wrong speed. I went over and checked my 'table's speed (a Linn LP12 back then) and it was spot on. What was happening was that the harmonics on this recording were eviscerated resulting in the perception that the turntable speed was <33 1/3 rpm. So I'd submit that harmonic content significantly contributes of pace.
 
Last edited:

hifitommy

Well-Known Member
the vocabulary of audio

of course it is necessary and changing when needed. applying it without obscuring the actual meaning is a true skill. robert harley has that skill in spades.

black background has always made sense to me since i heard the GAS products ampzilla and thoebe. it allows for greater dynamic range and permits the spaces between the notes to more properly exist.

when i encounter a term that i have trouble relating to, i give it a chance over time to see if it begins to make sense.

its funny, the word 'aplomb' is one i saw used by julian hirsch and he tired me of it. now i see it being used by audio reviewers and it burrows slightly under my skin. he was the first reviewer i read in audio and because of his adoration of the JBL L100s, he became one of my least favorite via that lack of credibility he established with me in that review.

now i am trying to re-accept the use of that word.

...regards...tr
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Myles, like some have pointed out allready it is the lack of noise. How black can it get? I really don't know because there are so many variables,gear,cables,source material. I often say to myself I can see all the way back into the concert hall, it should be "hearing". I find the biggest benifit is dynamics and clarity. If I can make out every word in a large choral piece or if I'm startled by a cymbal crash or fearful of some subsonic sound or laugh at the realism heard than I think the sound is "blacker" or noiseless.

Roger
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Myles, like some have pointed out allready it is the lack of noise. How black can it get? I really don't know because there are so many variables,gear,cables,source material. I often say to myself I can see all the way back into the concert hall, it should be "hearing". I find the biggest benifit is dynamics and clarity. If I can make out every word in a large choral piece or if I'm startled by a cymbal crash or fearful of some subsonic sound or laugh at the realism heard than I think the sound is "blacker" or noiseless.

Roger

Hi Roger,

So in reality, what's the difference between talking about clarity and transparency? It seems to me that many reviewers want to confuse our already confusing jargon with more terms that are less understood. It also seems to me that some feel that they have to outdo each other in inventing a new term (s).
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,570
51
38
Calgary, AB
Call me crazy but the descriptor "black background" = "dead silent background" = "nada, zilch, zippo noise" has never confused me. Just add it to the rather limited number of sonic descriptors that are available to our journalist buddies, sitting at their laptops with laminated glossaries of audio nouns, adjectives and adverbs with which to dazzle the reader. It would be fun to assemble of list of that over-used rhetoric. I may work on that in fact.

I like this post as it somehow makes sense to me in terms of the description provided. I wonder however if that should not be broken down further into two parts.

1. Quality of the physical media.
2. Quality of the artists' performance and the way it was recorded.

As such...is there such a combination out there? Is it even possible to attain?

John
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing